-=TOP TEN=- Which macro lens do you use?

[racketman]

which prime macro/s do you use? Just interested to see which is the most used lens by members of this forum. You can vote for more than one lens.



Please vote,.. feel free to add to the thread why you like the lenses you do in the list,. and or add in an additional lens if it is not on the list and say why!

-=More Lens Polls=- (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86975)

[Leorooster]

I use Canon 100 and Canon 180. I also recently acquired the newly released Nikon 105 VR and can't wait to try out the VR (IS equivalent). :)

EDIT: I'm now using Canon 180L and Canon MP-E65. ;)

[cgratti]

I use my Sigma 105mm Macro most, I also really like using my "Nifty Fifty" with extension tubes.

[dazzlebea]

I'm gonna be so lonely :( Where is formula4speed? He has a Tokina too.

[racketman]

I'm gonna be so lonely :( Where is formula4speed? He has a Tokina too.

looking at your gallery it clearly does the business. UK price is a touch more than the Tamron 90 & Sigma 105 so one would expect it to compete in this company.

[Jamey S.]

I use the Sigma 150mm, Sigma 105mm, as well as Kenko ETs, Macro Bellows + Rail combined with some older M42 mount lenses.

[Athena]

I have the 60mm, two Canon tubes and the 500D. I want to buy another macro lens, but just can't decide which one to go for.

[mecdave]

Since I'm in limbo between the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 150 I voted for both.

[revert]

100mm 2.8 macro. Holler!!! Haha.

[racketman]

this is quite a suprise to me to see the Canon 100 running away, interesting.

[pup]

I'm not surprised,
but I am surprised only 1 person (at this point) uses the Tamron 90mm

This poll is helping me make my macro choice

[racketman]

I'm not surprised,
but I am surprised only 1 person (at this point) uses the Tamron 90mm

This poll is helping me make my macro choice

Melvyn takes his great shots with the Tamron 90 - must be more to vote.

[racketman]

I have the 60mm, two Canon tubes and the 500D. I want to buy another macro lens, but just can't decide which one to go for.

You have the 60 which is light and ideal for the smaller bugs where a heavier lens might be hard to avoid shake without use of a tripod. Now you should go for a 150/180 for the timid bugs, like most Dragonflies, that you cant easily approach for close ups with the 60.

[dpastern]

None of the above - Kenko extension tubes and 50mm lens ;) If I ever get my hands on a Sigma 150mm macro...I'll vote for that ;)

Dave

[Ianfp]

I use the EF-S 60mm F2.8 USM. It has so far proven to be razor sharp, although I haven't spent a lot of time with it. Also great as a portrait lens!

[racketman]

I use the EF-S 60mm F2.8 USM. It has so far proven to be razor sharp, although I haven't spent a lot of time with it. Also great as a portrait lens!

Definitely a good all rounder - this was taken with it:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/33/541333/1/58778095.Bertiediggingsand800.jpg

[Mike Bell]

You have the 60 which is light and ideal for the smaller bugs where a heavier lens might be hard to avoid shake without use of a tripod. Now you should go for a 150/180 for the timid bugs, like most Dragonflies, that you cant easily approach for close ups with the 60.

I'll second that. I got the EF-S 60 with my rebate vouchers that came with the camera. It's a lovely little lens - very sharp, even with tubes on. The 150 came later - bit of an impulse buy but now my favourite for outdoor roaming in the garden bug hunting. Overall I use them both about equally.

Other uses: The 60 doubles as a portrait lens. The 150 on a monopod has proved a good choice for indoor concerts as it is sharp wide open at f2.8.

[chemicalbro]

Sigma 105 and jessops tubes for me

[racketman]

almost comlete domination by four lenses. Good to see the 60 is more popular than I thought.

[pup]

Just ordered a Canon 100 f2.8 this morning so thats my vote.

[JDUPhoto]

In addition to my Canon 100/2.8 Macro that I voted for, I also have the MP-E 65 1-5x Macro, although of course it's not a prime. I have yet to get stuck in with the MP-E 65 in ernest, but so far it's been fun to play with when used in conjunction with a Canon MR-14EX Ring Lite on my 20D. A friend came over last night. I handed him my camera with MP-E 65 and ring lite on (I set everything beforehand) and he took a shot of some newspaper print no problem at all at 5x handheld. He has a Nikon system, but started talking about Canon. His fiancee may not want him to be getting any more GAS* ideas from me. ;) Don't we all suffer from GAS to some degree or we wouldn't be doing what we do, right? :rolleyes:

* Gear Acquisition Syndrome

[racketman]

noone using a 180 - i'm sure they do.
Here's a tripod shot of a string dampener taken with my 150 Sigma, sharp enough I think:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/33/541333/1/58979771.dampnersmile.JPG

[racketman]

In addition to my Canon 100/2.8 Macro that I voted for, I also have the MP-E 65 1-5x Macro, although of course it's not a prime. I have yet to get stuck in with the MP-E 65 in ernest, but so far it's been fun to play with when used in conjunction with a Canon MR-14EX Ring Lite on my 20D. A friend came over last night. I handed him my camera with MP-E 65 and ring lite on (I set everything beforehand) and he took a shot of some newspaper print no problem at all at 5x handheld. He has a Nikon system, but started talking about Canon. His fiancee may not want him to be getting any more GAS* ideas from me. ;) Don't we all suffer from GAS to some degree or we wouldn't be doing what we do, right? :rolleyes:

* Gear Acquisition Syndrome

probably should have added the MP-E65 to the list though I doubt more than acouple use it .

[gunnut]

I just got my sigma 180.I have'nt even shot with it yet,

[racketman]

Sigma 150 mounting strong challenge (yes, this is a bump).

[mecdave]

noone using a 180 - i'm sure they do.
Here's a tripod shot of a string dampener taken with my 150 Sigma, sharp enough I think:

Sharp, yet realistic. I like it! :D

[racketman]

Tamron 90 up to three, suprised there are not more though given its good reviews. Brand loyalty fairly strong with Canon taking 45% of the total.

[TammieO]

I use the Canon 100mm mostly, but love playing with my MP-E65. I'd like to try the Sigma 150 and Canon 180.

[racketman]

i've asked big B if I can extend this poll and add the MP-E65 but may have left it too late. I think its quite useful to keep it going.

[Lester Wareham]

Canon 100mm - but you missed an option for the MP-E 65mm.

[Lester Wareham]

In addition to my Canon 100/2.8 Macro that I voted for, I also have the MP-E 65 1-5x Macro, although of course it's not a prime. I have yet to get stuck in with the MP-E 65 in ernest, but so far it's been fun to play with when used in conjunction with a Canon MR-14EX Ring Lite on my 20D. A friend came over last night. I handed him my camera with MP-E 65 and ring lite on (I set everything beforehand) and he took a shot of some newspaper print no problem at all at 5x handheld. He has a Nikon system, but started talking about Canon. His fiancee may not want him to be getting any more GAS* ideas from me. ;) Don't we all suffer from GAS to some degree or we wouldn't be doing what we do, right? :rolleyes:

* Gear Acquisition Syndrome


The MP-E most certanly is a prime - why do you say it is not???

[CyberDyneSystems]

Added MPE-65 and EF 50mm macro...

Added the poll to the -=TOP TEN=- lens section in the EF lens FAQ,.. ;)

If were missing any other Macro primes let us know.

-=More Lens Polls=- (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86975)

[CyberDyneSystems]

The MP-E most certanly is a prime - why do you say it is not???

the fact that it adjust magnification from 1X to 5X is pretty "zoom like" though it does it in a different way from how other zooms function.. it couls be easily be seen to be a zoom?

[JDUPhoto]

The MP-E most certanly is a prime - why do you say it is not???

Lenses are primes or zooms. The MP-E 65 zooms, so it can't be a prime, unless I've got the concept of primes vs zooms all wrong. :oops:

[Lester Wareham]

Lenses are primes or zooms. The MP-E 65 zooms, so it can't be a prime, unless I've got the concept of primes vs zooms all wrong. :oops:

Yes you have - no offence.

A zoom lens changes focal length; a prime lens does not. It has nothing to do with physical change of size if that is what you think.

The MP-E 65mm is a single focal length prime lens that is focussed by the old time method of overall linear extension - the lens is moved away from the sensor to adjust how close the subject is and thus the manification. At 1:1 the lens if 2F away from the sensor and at 5:1 it is 6F away from the sensor. This is the same way bellows and extension tubes work.

I have seen similar mistakes with macro lenses before, you are changing the focussing distance of the lens when you turn the magnification control.

The MP-E also has a floating element inside to correct for CA over the very high magnification range, something you don't get with a bellows solution.

Zoom lens change focal length to give a change in angle of view even when focussed at infinity.
:wink:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Good explanation Lester!

[JDUPhoto]

Yes you have - no offence.

A zoom lens changes focal length; a prime lens does not. It has nothing to do with physical change of size if that is what you think.

The MP-E 65mm is a single focal length prime lens that is focussed by the old time method of overall linear extension - the lens is moved away from the sensor to adjust how close the subject is and thus the manification. At 1:1 the lens if 2F away from the sensor and at 5:1 it is 6F away from the sensor. This is the same way bellows and extension tubes work.

I have seen similar mistakes with macro lenses before, you are changing the focussing distance of the lens when you turn the magnification control.

The MP-E also has a floating element inside to correct for CA over the very high magnification range, something you don't get with a bellows solution.

Zoom lens change focal length to give a change in angle of view even when focussed at infinity.
:wink:

Lester, thanks very much for your explanation. Makes sense. Happy to know I have have another prime in my collection, and a fun one at that. :lol: I see the MP-E 65 now appears on the poll, so I'm off to cast the first vote for it. :cool: Just checked and it seems the poll has closed.

[Lester Wareham]

Lester, thanks very much for your explanation. Makes sense. Happy to know I have have another prime in my collection, and a fun one at that. :lol: I see the MP-E 65 now appears on the poll, so I'm off to cast the first vote for it. :cool: Just checked and it seems the poll has closed.

Yes I think the MP-E was added after all the proud MP-E owners complained it was not included but had already voted. Never mind.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Poll is not closed,. but you can't go back and vote again now that new options are added unfortunately. the only way to pull that off would be to reset everything to zero.

[bonzl]

I use both the 100mm Canon and the 180mmm both excellent lenses with different strengths.

[Mathiau]

Tokina 100mm in the mail!

[Lester Wareham]

I have the canon 100mm (and MP-E) and recommend it to everyone, but even so I am surprised by how many use it. Seems to be the clear winner.

[dkangel]

Tamron 180mm. Can you say SHARP!!! It is slow though.


Here are four of my favorite links for it (Tom Crowning is very good):


http://www.pbase.com/brakefield333/macro&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/mr_jason/insects
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui/image/29843203
http://www.tom-crowning.com/macro01/index.php

[JohnnyG]

I vote for the 100mm Canon! I don't have it yet but this poll and other posts have convinced me that this is the one I want!

[Mount Airy Ed]

Hi, I'm on a budget and would like to get both a zoom and macro lens in one. I see mostly fixed macro lenses used here. In a few posts, I've seen the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. What's your opinion of that lens? What are the zoom/macros that are better than that one?

Thanks!
Ed

[JDUPhoto]

Hi, I'm on a budget and would like to get both a zoom and macro lens in one. I see mostly fixed macro lenses used here. In a few posts, I've seen the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. What's your opinion of that lens? What are the zoom/macros that are better than that one?

Thanks!
Ed

Ed, you may be looking for an impossible combination. Many lenses claim to be macro, but don't come anywhere near 1:1 magnification. The lens you've asked about achieves no better than 1:2 and that's at a minimum focussing distance of 1.5m (59.1 inches). However, that magnification is a good deal better than you'll get from most zoom lenses, so may not be a bad option if 1:2 is macro enough for you. It would no doubt be a good choice for butterflies and other larger subjects.

[Lester Wareham]

Hi, I'm on a budget and would like to get both a zoom and macro lens in one. I see mostly fixed macro lenses used here. In a few posts, I've seen the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. What's your opinion of that lens? What are the zoom/macros that are better than that one?

Thanks!
Ed

A lot of zooms have macro in the title and on the focus ring. This is really a marketting gimick and indicates some close focus capability.

A real macro lens will be specialy designed for very high resolution, low chromatic aberation and good flatness of field over a large magnification range. They can normally focus unaided to at least life size. Most modern macro lenses also perform well at conventional distances.

You can use zooms with tubes to get higher magnification but aparantly this introduces more chromatic aberation than one gets with a good prime. However some people have published pics with the kit lens etc that look very good on the web - I don't know how good they are if printed at A3 or larger.

If you are a budget get tubes and use tham with a good prime, if you don't have a good prime get the 50/1.8 if really stuck for cash.

[Carzee]

Nil.
No macro. Am I the only one without macro glass?

I plan on re-acquiring a Kiron 105 f2.8 if I see one.

[kwsanders]

The macro that I use is not on the list, so I thought I would mention it here. I have the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. It is half lifesize (1:2). I hope to purchase the 100mm f/2.8 macro in the near future.

[Reyno]

Tamron 90mm 2.8. Just got it today.

[35mm]

I have an extension ring. i can't afford a lense

[Bob Boner]

I use the Canon 180. I have used Minolta 50mm, Vivitar 90mm,Nikon 55, 105, and 200mm, and the Çanon 180. I like the 180 the best. I think it is one of the top two lenses Canon makes (300 f/2.8 is possibly as good). I highly recommend it.

[rgravel]

I just voted for the Canon 100, because I just ordered one from B&H moments ago :cool:

Can't wait to receive it :)

[dpastern]

Sigma 150mm :) Got it a few days ago, still getting used to it, it's a lot heavier than my 50mm/kenko tube setup - with my flash, flash bracket and 1D the whole lot is around 3kg I'd say. I swear the Sigma is heavier than both my Canon 70-200 f2.8 and 300mm f4 ;) Excellent build quality and feel, and the optical quality is very very sharp, top notch. Sharper than my Canon 50mm f1.8, and that's a reasonably sharp lens I believe.

After having just spent 3-4 months getting my focusing technique down to pat with the 50mm/tubes combo I'm having to start all over again with the Sigma, most of my shots so far have been pretty disappointing from my end. I did get a few good shots of ants and a jumper yesterday though, haven't processed them yet ;)

For those looking at a macro lens, and not wanting to cart around a heavy lens, go for the Canon 100mm as it's smaller and lighter and easier to handle than the Sigma 150mm (but no better in image quality).

The Sigma's AF isn't too bad at all - the HSM is silent, and it's pretty accurate. It's a tad too slow, but it'll only affect you if you're trying to use it for sports/action etc. Normal usage, the AF speed is fine.

Dave

edited: I failed to mention originally that the Sigma represents fantastic value for money, and the optical performance is every bit as good as the Canon 180mm f3.5L as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure some will disagree with me on that one ;)

[benca1]

edited: I failed to mention originally that the Sigma represents fantastic value for money, and the optical performance is every bit as good as the Canon 180mm f3.5L as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure some will disagree with me on that one ;)

The Canon 180mm L has some of the worst vignetting going for a macro lens and the saddest MTF numbers I've seen for a macro lens.

FWIW, the highest res lens, theoretically, is the Tamron 90mm which puts all others to shame with virtually no vignetting worth mentioning. Gaspingly sharp wide open. Following the same numbers the next sharpest Macro is the Sigma 105, the Canon 100, and the Sigma 150. The Canon 180 comes in dead last.

For the money, being that the 100mm Canon comes with nothing but a box and the Tamron comes with a 6 year warranty, pouch and hood, it seems sort of short sighted to pass it up for the Canon. Both being less then 500 dollars. (the Tamron is actually about 25 to 50 bucks cheaper). And the 10mm less focal length helps the Tamron better as a portrain lens for APC cameras.

For 350 bucks, it looks like the Sigma 105 is the best bargain going.

[madferrit]

For 350 bucks, it looks like the Sigma 105 is the best bargain going.

I'm so glad you said that, i just purchased this lens from a fellow POTNer.. just can't wait to put it to use :D

[Sn@ve]

I only recently acquired the Canon 100mm f 2.8 and I love it. I am virtually certain that I'll end up with the 180mm version at some point in time. It is without a doubt my favorite lens and macro is my favorite genre of photography.

[mR_CaESaR]

im' a sigma 150mm user here, but i'm still learning the art of macro, i really would like to get some pics of flies and butterfiles like the ones i see on this forum, bloody amazing, but i have no idea how they are done.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The macro that I use is not on the list, so I thought I would mention it here. I have the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. It is half lifesize (1:2). I hope to purchase the 100mm f/2.8 macro in the near future.

It really is on the list....

[dpastern]

im' a sigma 150mm user here, but i'm still learning the art of macro, i really would like to get some pics of flies and butterfiles like the ones i see on this forum, bloody amazing, but i have no idea how they are done.

Lots of practice my fellow Sydneyite ;) The Sigma 150mm is a big lens though, it's heavy and solid. I'm getting a few good shots here and there, but it's a lot harder to hold steady than my old 50mm/tubes combo. That all said, the Sigma is a gem!

Dave

[mR_CaESaR]

Lots of practice my fellow Sydneyite ;) The Sigma 150mm is a big lens though, it's heavy and solid. I'm getting a few good shots here and there, but it's a lot harder to hold steady than my old 50mm/tubes combo. That all said, the Sigma is a gem!

Dave

yeah i better start practising :)

I find for flowers its alright to use a tripod, but for insects and stuff, its a lot harder to get the good shots, it must be handheld.

Just wondering though, do most people use a flash bracket? or is the flash on the hot shoe enough?

[Lester Wareham]

Lots of practice my fellow Sydneyite ;) The Sigma 150mm is a big lens though, it's heavy and solid. I'm getting a few good shots here and there, but it's a lot harder to hold steady than my old 50mm/tubes combo. That all said, the Sigma is a gem!

Dave

The weight issue is why I normally recommend a 100mm. The Sigma 150mm is nearly 300g heavier than the 600g EF 100mm macro, that is 50% more and about the same as the macro flash.

[dpastern]

yeah i better start practising :)

I find for flowers its alright to use a tripod, but for insects and stuff, its a lot harder to get the good shots, it must be handheld.

Just wondering though, do most people use a flash bracket? or is the flash on the hot shoe enough?

That's pretty much it. I use a Delta Flip flash 1 bracket, which is brill. You can't get them locally, but you can order from B&H, it'll cost you US $40 for the bracket and another $40 for shipping via UPS. It comes quick, and well packed from my experience. It's well worth buying :)

Dave

[dpastern]

The weight issue is why I normally recommend a 100mm. The Sigma 150mm is nearly 300g heavier than the 600g EF 100mm macro, that is 50% more and about the same as the macro flash.

This is very true Lester. In hindsight, I'd most probably have gone for the Canon 100mm and lost a bit of quality (I consider the Sigma to have better optical quality from what I've seen - I know it's hard to be totally sure unless you can test it yourself, if someone wants to lend me a Canon 100mm...). I'd lose about 5cm working distance (no biggie imho), 300gm in weight, wouldn't have to buy a Sigma 1.4x TC like I'll have to now, and the lens would be a bit smaller and easier to handle. That all said, you'll be prying the Sigma 150mm from my cold, dead hands :P

Dave

[Lester Wareham]

This is very true Lester. In hindsight, I'd most probably have gone for the Canon 100mm and lost a bit of quality (I consider the Sigma to have better optical quality from what I've seen - I know it's hard to be totally sure unless you can test it yourself, if someone wants to lend me a Canon 100mm...). I'd lose about 5cm working distance (no biggie imho), 300gm in weight, wouldn't have to buy a Sigma 1.4x TC like I'll have to now, and the lens would be a bit smaller and easier to handle. That all said, you'll be prying the Sigma 150mm from my cold, dead hands :P

Dave

I don't know, they EF 100mm has got fairly good IQ, the EF 180mm is reputed to be better and the MP-E 65mm is better at 1:1 IMHO but we talking quite small improvements on already good performance. I think the lowest macro lens in the Canon pecking order it the little 50mm macro. Most people think there is no such thing as a bad macro lens. I know some people don't like the EF 100mm because it does not come with a hood and a TMA, never heard any compalints about IQ.

Not that I want to bash anything but the only test (http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100.html) I have ever seen at life size (rather than 55 or 75 times the focal length subject distance like photodo or photozone) showed the Sigma 105 and 180 lenses to be poor wide open although they did sharpen up closed down. I think the Sigma 150 post dates this review.

[TooManyHobbies]

I use my 70-200 F2.8 IS with closeup filter so I'm not on the list. I have friends who reverse mount lenses to do it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow, what a slaughter!
HAven't seen anything like this since the "Wildlife Zoom" poll,.. (same thing happened with 100-400mm)
With the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro taking nearly 50% of the total votes, the rest of the field has to divide the other 50%.

[sirsloop]

I use either a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2 reverse mounted...

[John Ellis]

I have just purchased the 180 Macro........I would appreciate any tips out there.

[theshaner]

I am really suprised with the number of votes for the 60mm macro that there are not more people speaking their piece about it. Is there any reason everyone is going for the 100mm? Is it purely for the distance from subject gain over the 60mm? Everything that I have read says the 60mm is typically a sharper lens.

[Lester Wareham]

I am really suprised with the number of votes for the 60mm macro that there are not more people speaking their piece about it. Is there any reason everyone is going for the 100mm? Is it purely for the distance from subject gain over the 60mm? Everything that I have read says the 60mm is typically a sharper lens.

The photozone measurements show the 60mm to be slightly sharper ~f4 but they are both close ~f8. Remember this is just one of each lens.

The Canon MTF data are very close also but with the 100mm generally a bit better in the centre and quite a bit better in the corners as might be expected comparing a full frame and APS-C lens. Be aware the MTF data on the Canon USA web for the 100mm does not match that in the Canon Lenswork book and is very poor, and I presume in error as it would be worse than manu comercial zooms otherwise.

The main differences are (as is common with almost all macro lenses) more to do with operational utility.

The 60mm is small and light compared to the 100mm but it has a shorter working distance and probably more importantly is not full frame.

Also the 100mm has a focus range limiter switch to keep AF speed fast when used as a normal tele and can be use with a tripod mount adaptor.

Probably the most significant thing is the working distance to weight tradeoff, which is close to ideal for the 100mm IMHO.

[jforj143]

Im have just purchased the canon 60mm 2.8 can anyone tell me if they use any extension tubes with it and if so what do you use????

[racketman]

Im have just purchased the canon 60mm 2.8 can anyone tell me if they use any extension tubes with it and if so what do you use????

I use the Jessops extension tubes which are comparatively cheap and work with the EFS lenses unlike Kenko tubes. Canon are overpriced though better built - no little rattles. Not sure if Jessops have branches down under?

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s18289/0/Extension-Tubes/Jessops/Auto-Extension-Tubes-For-Canon-AF/details.aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&comp=n

[racketman]

I am really suprised with the number of votes for the 60mm macro that there are not more people speaking their piece about it. Is there any reason everyone is going for the 100mm? Is it purely for the distance from subject gain over the 60mm? Everything that I have read says the 60mm is typically a sharper lens.

Great lens, not least for portraits. Probably people are put off investing in EFS lenses when in the back of their mind they are thinking they may 'upgrade' to a 5D or 1 series in the future.

[roger the photographer]

I just voted for the Canon 100mm f/2.8, which is the macro lens I use 100% of the time. My next buy, though, will be the Canon 180mm L macro. It should give me a bit more reach with a full-sized sensor like the 5D.

Any thoughts about converters or rings, for someone who wishes to get more that a 1:1 ratio? Does anybody use them?

:D

[Lester Wareham]

I just voted for the Canon 100mm f/2.8, which is the macro lens I use 100% of the time. My next buy, though, will be the Canon 180mm L macro. It should give me a bit more reach with a full-sized sensor like the 5D.

Any thoughts about converters or rings, for someone who wishes to get more that a 1:1 ratio? Does anybody use them?

:D

Hi Roger,

Just keep in mind the 180mm is quite a heavy lens if you are working handheld, great on a tripod.

You can use tubes or teleconvertors with your 100mm to get more magnification. With about 60mm of tubes you will get to about 2:1 but with reduced working distance, with a 2X for example you get 2:1 at the same working distance. BTW you can use the Canon TCs with the 100mm if you put a small 12mm tube between the TC and the lens.

If I need more than life size I tend to use my MP-E 65mm which goes from 1X to 5X but with relatively shart working distance, blisteringly sharp however.

[roger the photographer]

Hi Lester,

I will come back to you on this as I do not want to hijack the thread for my own purposes. But in short, weight is no concern, I'm used to heavy equipment always on a tripod, doing insect photography in the wild. Reach is of prime importance, hence the 180mm. I've read several of your posts about converters and rings, will need additional info about this also, if this doesn't bother you.

To give you an idea, here is an example of the work (http://www.artphotokebek.com/mantes_religieuses2006/mantes_religieuses/Resources/mante_translucideDK.jpg) I like to do, for which I would love a better reach and a better lens if possible :D

[Lester Wareham]

Hi Lester,

I will come back to you on this as I do not want to hijack the thread for my own purposes. But in short, weight is no concern, I'm used to heavy equipment always on a tripod, doing insect photography in the wild. Reach is of prime importance, hence the 180mm. I've read several of your posts about converters and rings, will need additional info about this also, if this doesn't bother you.

To give you an idea, here is an example of the work (http://www.artphotokebek.com/mantes_religieuses2006/mantes_religieuses/Resources/mante_translucideDK.jpg) I like to do, for which I would love a better reach and a better lens if possible :D

Some great shots there, you clearly are doing well with your methods.

I guess if you are working in ambient light from a tripod with insects, reach is the key thing, my personal experience is that the insects are normally too difficult to get an angle on with a tripod and tiny subject movements are an issue, but most of all it is difficult to stalk-in with a tripod without disturbing the undergrowth.

So the 180 is the thing, there is also the Sigma 180. You can add a 1.4X or 2X I suggest you start a general thread in the lens forum requesting TC feedback from lucky owners of the 180. There is also this review (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nnplus.de%2Fmacro%2FM acro100.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools).

I have used my 300/4 IS with tubes and with the 1.4X & 2X for some insect work where the subject is very shy. I found it becomes increasingly hard to locate the subject in the frame as the angle of view decreases, as you have to search in x/y and slivers of depth. 300mm I found just very usable but with the 1.4X or 2X hard to use except with the lager insects for this reason.

So I would say for use up to like size you probably would not want to use more than the 1.4X for these use-case reasons, perhaps the 2X for larger bugs like the bigger mantids and dragons.

[roger the photographer]

Some great shots there, you clearly are doing well with your methods.

I guess if you are working in ambient light from a tripod with insects, reach is the key thing, my personal experience is that the insects are normally too difficult to get an angle on with a tripod and tiny subject movements are an issue, but most of all it is difficult to stalk-in with a tripod without disturbing the undergrowth.

So the 180 is the thing, there is also the Sigma 180. You can add a 1.4X or 2X I suggest you start a general thread in the lens forum requesting TC feedback from lucky owners of the 180.

(...).

Hi Lester,

Thank you for your interesting and instructive comments. I will start a new thread tonight about this, including a ref to your post if you do not object.

Life is fun! :lol:

[StealthLude]

I voted for a lens on this forum before I owned one. But I picked up the 100mm Canon 2.8 macro and havent looked back since.

Very happy with my lens.

[roger the photographer]

Some great shots there, you clearly are doing well with your methods.

I guess if you are working in ambient light from a tripod with insects, reach is the key thing, my personal experience is that the insects are normally too difficult to get an angle on with a tripod and tiny subject movements are an issue, but most of all it is difficult to stalk-in with a tripod without disturbing the undergrowth.

So the 180 is the thing, there is also the Sigma 180. You can add a 1.4X or 2X
(...)
Hi Lester,

Hi started a new thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2384338#post2384338) about this, as you suggested.

Thanks a lot. :D

[Cactuspic]

Sigma 180mm, Sigma 105mm, Canon 65mp-e, Rodenstock rodagon 75mm D2x, Zeiss 60mm. Best regards.

Irwin

[scraps]

Recently picked up the Sigma 70mm F/2.8 macro; really enjoying it, very sharp lense. Will get some pics up before long.

[Lester Wareham]

You have the 60 which is light and ideal for the smaller bugs where a heavier lens might be hard to avoid shake without use of a tripod. Now you should go for a 150/180 for the timid bugs, like most Dragonflies, that you cant easily approach for close ups with the 60.

I feel a bit like a cheat but I mostly use the 300 f4L IS with tubes for dragons and damsels. For a Migrant Hawker pair they were so nervy I ended up using the 300 f4 with the 2X from a distance of about 5ft.

Butterflies and most bugs etc I use the 100mm macro mostly now my stalking has improved a bit unless I need lots of mag the the MP-E.

[roger the photographer]

I feel a bit like a cheat but I mostly use the 300 f4L IS with tubes for dragons and damsels. For a Migrant Hawker pair they were so nervy I ended up using the 300 f4 with the 2X from a distance of about 5ft.

Butterflies and most bugs etc I use the 100mm macro mostly now my stalking has improved a bit unless I need lots of mag the the MP-E.
I do not think that this is cheating, Lester. It does the job quite well apparently, and from a distance!!! Photographer James Longster does it all the time with great success too, even for some smaller bugs.

I will have to ask him too, but what is your minimum working distance, with and without tubes? Also, do you use a tripod in this case? And finally, what kind of image degradation do you observe with a 2X multiplier on the 300L?

Stalking and patience are the name of the game...

:D

[Lester Wareham]

I do not think that this is cheating, Lester. It does the job quite well apparently, and from a distance!!! Photographer James Longster does it all the time with great success too, even for some smaller bugs.

I will have to ask him too, but what is your minimum working distance, with and without tubes? Also, do you use a tripod in this case? And finally, what kind of image degradation do you observe with a 2X multiplier on the 300L?

Stalking and patience are the name of the game...

:D

Hi Roger

The 300mm f4 has a closest focus on it's own of 1.5m with a magnification of 0.24, enough reason to get the lens alone IMHO. Obviously with the 2X the magnification goes to 0.48 and the closest focus remains the same, but 600mm at close distance is hard to use - having found the subject however I do not find the manual focus much of an issue.

With tubes (no TC), I have some rough measurements with Kenko tubes prior to switching to the Canon ones. With the 68mm stack you get a magnification range of 0.22-0.58 and a WD of 1770-680mm. For dragons I tend to use just one 25mm tube and for damsels two 25mm tubes.

Something I have noted with tubes on this lens is the camera meter tends to over expose by about 1/2 stop, something that is made worse by the saturated colours of these bugs, so I often backoff by about 2/3 - 1 stop of indicated.

As for the 2X, the 300 holds resolution well acording to measurement (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/EF_300mm_f4L_TCs/index.htm), not as well as the 200/2.8 but very usable and definatly better than upressing.

You can checkout some of my dragon shots (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Gallery/Photos/Arthropods/Dragonflies/index.html)to give some idea.

The actual shoot with the 2X I was talking about was one of these to give an idea:

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/GalleryPics/Photos/Arthropods/Dragonflies/Insects%20Dragonfly%20035.jpg

100% crop

[::Lisa::]

I only have 1 macro lens right now, which is the Sigma 105mm.

I just bought myself a reverse ring and some extenstion rings too w00t :lol:

[Lester Wareham]

Come on you people - get your submissions in for the POTN book!

See the link below.

[LoganWade]

I just voted for the 100 2.8. After reading all the reviews I bid on a used only once lens on ebay. It came with the canon hood and b&w filter, shipped for $467.00. Seemed like a good deal to me and no extra hastle of ordering a hood seperately. Should be here soon, cant wait to try it!

[roger the photographer]

Hi Roger

The 300mm f4 has a closest focus on it's own of 1.5m with a magnification of 0.24, enough reason to get the lens alone IMHO. Obviously with the 2X the magnification goes to 0.48 and the closest focus remains the same, but 600mm at close distance is hard to use - having found the subject however I do not find the manual focus much of an issue.

(...)

Thanks for this very interesting info and for taking the time, Lester. Sorry I didn't answer before, I've been away for a time.

Your shots are really terrific and give me a lot of ideas. :-) And the technical info on your website is quite something too. Your website goes right into the Links section of my own website.

I will try to borrow some material and experiment with tubes, the 180mm macro and also the 300 mm from Canon. This will hopefully give me an idea on what is the best buy for what I do.

An other point: Is there is difference in magnification when using a 20D or a 5D? I would be inclined to say yes as the 20D uses only part of the potential image. Its magnification factor should then be greater than 1:1 with a lens like the 100mm macro, should it not? Not absolutely sure about that one though... :confused:

[Lester Wareham]

Thanks for this very interesting info and for taking the time, Lester. Sorry I didn't answer before, I've been away for a time.

Your shots are really terrific and give me a lot of ideas. :-) And the technical info on your website is quite something too. Your website goes right into the Links section of my own website.

I will try to borrow some material and experiment with tubes, the 180mm macro and also the 300 mm from Canon. This will hopefully give me an idea on what is the best buy for what I do.

An other point: Is there is difference in magnification when using a 20D or a 5D? I would be inclined to say yes as the 20D uses only part of the potential image. Its magnification factor should then be greater than 1:1 with a lens like the 100mm macro, should it not? Not absolutely sure about that one though... :confused:

Glad you find my ramblings helpful. :)

Magnification is defined as the ratio of the size of the image on the sensor to the size of the object, so there is no change with format. However, it will be easier to fill the frame on a crop camera as it is only using the centre 40% of the image area (1/1.6/1.6).

[roger the photographer]

Glad you find my ramblings helpful. :)

Magnification is defined as the ratio of the size of the image on the sensor to the size of the object, so there is no change with format. However, it will be easier to fill the frame on a crop camera as it is only using the centre 40% of the image area (1/1.6/1.6).

Hello Lester,

I would perhaps venture to correct you on this: it seems to me that typically, the magnification factor should be defined as the ratio of the DIAGONAL of the image on the sensor to the DIAGONAL of the object.

True, a 20D sensor is about 40% of the surface of a 5D sensor. But I would then define an APPARENT magnification factor as being 1:1 multiplied by 1.6, or 1.6:1, instead of an apparent magnification factor of 1:1 multiplied by 1.6*1.6, or 2.5:1.

So, as long as both cameras are using the same lens (and not a lens designed for the 20D only), the 20D "should" have a 1.6 factor advantage in magnification.

I am right on this? I would bet a beer from Québec, but not two! :D

[Lester Wareham]

Hello Lester,

I would perhaps venture to correct you on this: it seems to me that typically, the magnification factor should be defined as the ratio of the DIAGONAL of the image on the sensor to the DIAGONAL of the object.

True, a 20D sensor is about 40% of the surface of a 5D sensor. But I would then define an APPARENT magnification factor as being 1:1 multiplied by 1.6, or 1.6:1, instead of an apparent magnification factor of 1:1 multiplied by 1.6*1.6, or 2.5:1.

So, as long as both cameras are using the same lens (and not a lens designed for the 20D only), the 20D "should" have a 1.6 factor advantage in magnification.

I am right on this? I would bet a beer from Québec, but not two! :D

Hi Roger

Well technically, as far as the equations for macro depth of field and light loss go the definition is as I supplied. This is an optical definition. It does not matter if you measure across the diagonal, or anywhere else, as it is a linear transformation (in maths speak) at least in focus plane.

For more on the DOF etc equations take a look at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/dof/dof.htm#DoF_with_Macro_Photography

The only caveat to this might be if tilt movements are being used on a large format camera or T&S lens where one would probably talk about the average or median (not sure, have to think on that) magnification in the tilting focus plane.

What you see as the extra 1.6 of magnification is the extra enlargement magnification required for the smaller format.

I used to get to Ottawa now and again on business but not any more - so you are safe for that beer for the moment! :)

[markhwebster]

Hi,
First, thanks for all the info on macro lens. You guys really know your stuff. I'm saving up for one, but in the meantime, I built one for seven dollars after finding an article online. It takes decent pictures, but is really just enough to whet my appetite for macro. If you are interested in how to use an old 35mm film camera lens in reversed position for shooting macro, I've documented the process on this page, with pictures of the parts, and the resulting macro photos:

http://www.websterart.com/html/seven_dollar.html

cheers!

[racketman]

Sigma 70mm needs to be added to poll list now, getting good reviews.

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=483

[racketman]

Sigma 150 in non macro mode, pretty sharp hand held shot:
100%crop

http://www.pbase.com/racketman/image/74792024.jpg

from:

http://www.pbase.com/racketman/image/74792369.jpg

[catsmom]

LOVE my brand new 100mm 2.8! macros and portraits!

[Lawrie B]

Just bought a Sigma 105 F2.8

[gregrocco]

Hey! There's no option for those of us in the S3 cheap seats! :wink: I use the Raynox DCR-250...

[Techuser]

I use a handheld 44mm lens, broken out from an old film camera

[ajayclicks]

Sigma 70-300mm APO DG MACRO (1:2)

Thats all I can afford for now, and for the price which it comes, certainly delivers the goods.

Cheers
Ajay

[Zeppelin]

The Canon 180mm was my choice due in large part to the reach. When out and about concentrating on small things, having the reach and not having to change optics has proven beneficial.

(Noob out of the lurking closet makes his first post.)

[jimox]

60mm f2.8

[aRJun]

I'm thinking of getting a real macro (both my sigma and tamron speak of macro abilities but really are far from taking real macro shots) ..and I was really keen on getting the sigma 150/2.8 mainly cos:

1. To shoot bugs, etc I want to be a little bit away from them so as not to disturb their movements..that's where I think the 150mm will help..and on my rebel xt, it'll be almost 240mm!
2. I can double this up to use as a indoor concert lens.

The only thing I'm worried about is shutter speed when handholding...I think it's going to be a little tough getting 1/250s in low light even with f2.8.

Am I thinking right? I'm only worried about the heaviness of the lens and the longer focal length over the canon 100mm.

As far as images posted on this forum are concerned, I personally like the 150 vs 100.

[roger the photographer]

I'm thinking of getting a real macro (both my sigma and tamron speak of macro abilities but really are far from taking real macro shots) ..and I was really keen on getting the sigma 150/2.8 mainly cos:

1. To shoot bugs, etc I want to be a little bit away from them so as not to disturb their movements..that's where I think the 150mm will help..and on my rebel xt, it'll be almost 240mm!
2. I can double this up to use as a indoor concert lens.

The only thing I'm worried about is shutter speed when handholding...I think it's going to be a little tough getting 1/250s in low light even with f2.8.

Am I thinking right? I'm only worried about the heaviness of the lens and the longer focal length over the canon 100mm.

As far as images posted on this forum are concerned, I personally like the 150 vs 100.

Not a bad reasoning aRJun. However...

My personal experience has shown me that nothing can beat patience and a tripod. Another point: the Canon 100mm is very hard to beat. It is surprising that Canon doesn't sell it at L-glass prices in fact.

If money is no object, you should also look at the Canon 180mm macro f/3.5L. Used with a (light) tripod and extenders (not multipliers), results should be very, very good. I am considering buying it, but money IS an object right now...

If you're looking for macro shots with the Canon 100mm, you could perhaps look at this one:

http://www.artphotokebek.com/mantes_religieuses2006/mantes_religieuses/Resources/mante_rougeDK.jpg

or this other cute lady:

http://www.artphotokebek.com/mantes_religieuses2006/praying_mantids/prayingmantis7.html

Try the desktop format. Shot at 1/160s. I don't see how I could achieve such precision without a tripod though.

Cheers!

[aRJun]

Not a bad reasoning aRJun. However...

My personal experience has shown me that nothing can beat patience and a tripod. Another point: the Canon 100mm is very hard to beat. It is surprising that Canon doesn't sell it at L-glass prices in fact.

If money is no object, you should also look at the Canon 180mm macro f/3.5L. Used with a (light) tripod and extenders (not multipliers), results should be very, very good. I am considering buying it, but money IS an object right now...

If you're looking for macro shots with the Canon 100mm, you could perhaps look at this one:

http://www.artphotokebek.com/mantes_religieuses2006/mantes_religieuses/Resources/mante_rougeDK.jpg

or this other cute lady:

http://www.artphotokebek.com/mantes_religieuses2006/praying_mantids/prayingmantis7.html

Try the desktop format. Shot at 1/160s. I don't see how I could achieve such precision without a tripod though.

Cheers!

Thanks for your thoughts Roger..well I'm still not sold on the Canon...I really think the extra reach would be more useful to me. I understand that a tripod and a reflector is essential..I have a good tripod I think and I'll get a reflector too...I'm gonna get the Sigma and see how it goes else return it and see how the Canon is...that way I'd have made a better judgement for myself...it's quite expensive for a prime! :confused: But I'll do it...told myself no more bad glass..and no more it is :)

My vote goes for the Sigma.

[bluedrakon]

I am stuck between a Canon 100mm f2.8 and the Sigma 105mm f2.8. I shot mostly hand held and have been using a 70-300mm IS USM (I have a Canon EOS Rebel XTi).

I am just getting my hands back into photography and needed a starting point. I have been mostly taking insect / spider shots and need to have something a little more user friendly and 1:1.

Also saw threads about the Kenko extenders - would it be better to go with the Canon 100mm f2.8 with the or skip for the Sigma 105mm f2.8?

Thanks again

[Hatch1921]

the 100 2.8 usm still keeps me more than happy. Too bad I can't use the 1.4 TC with it. Oh well.

Tumak.... Place the 1.4xII Tc on the camera...12/24/36 or all extesions tubes on after the TC... then the 100mm lens. My favorite combo is the TC with the 24mm extension tube and the 100mm macro.

Hatch

[macro_mike]

Tamron 90mm f2.8 (135 on the 1.5 crop). Sweet lens :D

[Bob Boner]

Over the past 40 years, I have owned 50mm(Minolta), 55mm(Nikon), 90mm(Vivitar), 105mm(Nikon), 180mm(Canon), and 200mm(Nikon) macro lenses. By far my favorite have been the 180 and 200mm, primarily for the working distance. Optically, I think the 180mm Canon has been the best I have owned and what I currently use. (I also use the 90mm TSE for the tilt/shift feature). The larger lenses are heavier, but its not like they are really heavy. Among lenses used for nature photography, they are among the lightest weight ones. With them, I can photograph anything I could with the shorter lenses, and because of the working distance, I have better luck photographing small living things which move if you get too close. The 180 has the added advantage that it accepts both the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters.

[azphotos]

The 180mm has been a great lens for nature walkabout - can get nice 1:1 bugs and flowers and still shoot the birdies and other things of interest at a distance. In the studio setting, the lens has proven more than satisfactory for close ups. Utilizing a flash on camera or on a bracket has worked well in the field, but along with the purchase listed below, a twin light is on its way.

Knowing that I like shooting macro, a friend lent me her MP-E 65 to try out, with twin light. I was so thrilled with it that I just purchased one and it is on its way to me now! :D The decision for flash was easy - the twin light offers more light than the ring, hence when used in the field with the 180mm, should be able to light up objects a few more feet away.

[Lawrie B]

Sigma 105 Macro for a newbie

[drifter106]

Well the poll asked what I use so I had to say 100 2.8 for I just bought it. Based on the information provided here, it seemed the most logical choice. Don't think you can go wrong with many of the macro's. Some will provide you with dual roles as in the 100 2.8. Looking forward to using it and posting a few shots here.

regards,

John

[Mazu]

Tokina 100mm, price/quality ratio was a deciding factor. Tokina was 365€ where Sigma and Tamron 100mm were 450€ and Canon 100mm 570€...

[Bill Pham]

i'm getting my 100 macro today. looking to get the kenko tubes next. hope to post some pic by this weekend.

Bill :D

[00silvergt]

I also use the super sharp Sigma 70mm F2.8. Not included in this poll.

[arizona85224]

100 f2.8 kenko tubes and just bought the mp-e 65mm

[Canonman47]

Nil.
No macro. Am I the only one without macro glass?

I plan on re-acquiring a Kiron 105 f2.8 if I see one.

Not at all, I am without one as well. Never the less, I do consider buying one, the issue is just what to buy. I thought about the 100/2.8 as an allround lens. Thinking again I started to go more in the direction of the 60/2.8 as I sometimes shot products for catalogs. It doesn't happen more than maybe twice yearly for a small company. 100/2.8 would make it easier to capture bugs from a distance in our small garden. Anyway, I have plenty of time for thinking. Any comments are welcomed.

[azphotos]

Not at all, I am without one as well. Never the less, I do consider buying one, the issue is just what to buy. I thought about the 100/2.8 as an allround lens. Thinking again I started to go more in the direction of the 60/2.8 as I sometimes shot products for catalogs. It doesn't happen more than maybe twice yearly for a small company. 100/2.8 would make it easier to capture bugs from a distance in our small garden. Anyway, I have plenty of time for thinking. Any comments are welcomed.

Lovely results can be obtained with most of the glass out there. I have seen stunning photos from many of the Macro lenses. I have the 180mm Canon and the 65mm Canon - I also have a set of tubes. As previously stated, the 180 is a fine walk about for my needs in addition to being a superb macro lens. In those instances when I am not carrying an arsenal of lenses, the tubes are light and don't take up much room!

IMHO the most important aspect is a good tripod, patience, a good tripod, more patience, Canon's twin flash works well or you need some other suitable lighing source and finally stalking ability. Oh, did I mention a good tripod and patience?:D

[Ran_photography]

Where do you purchase these extenstion tubes?
and what exactly do they do?

[Lester Wareham]

Where do you purchase these extenstion tubes?
and what exactly do they do?

You can get them from any good photographic supplier, same place as you get you lenses etc.

They move the lens further away from the sensor allowing it to focus on objects much closer than normal, this makes the object much larger in the viewfinder (and sensor) than it would otherwise be. ie it gives more magnification.

[roger the photographer]

You can get them from any good photographic supplier, same place as you get you lenses etc.

They move the lens further away from the sensor allowing it to focus on objects much closer than normal, this makes the object much larger in the viewfinder (and sensor) than it would otherwise be. ie it gives more magnification.
Hi Lester,

If I understand correctly, one cannot focus at infinity with extension tubes, but will be able to either focus nearer with greater magnification or shoot from farther away with the same magnification. Is that right?

BTW, do you have numbers concerning the max focusing distance with extenders? This will vary depending on which extender(s) you use of course... :)

[Lester Wareham]

Hi Lester,

If I understand correctly, one cannot focus at infinity with extension tubes, but will be able to either focus nearer with greater magnification or shoot from farther away with the same magnification. Is that right?


Hi Roger, that is correct, there are some tabulations on my macro equipment page.


BTW, do you have numbers concerning the max focusing distance with extenders? This will vary depending on which extender(s) you use of course... :)

If you mean teleextenders ie teleconvertors then the max and min focusing distance of the lens remains unchanged, you just 1.4X or 2X more magnification and 1 or 2 stops additional light loss respectively.

[roger the photographer]

Hi Roger, that is correct, there are some tabulations on my macro equipment page.

If you mean teleextenders ie teleconvertors then the max and min focusing distance of the lens remains unchanged, you just 1.4X or 2X more magnification and 1 or 2 stops additional light loss respectively.

Great! Good info. :)

[jimox]

I have the Canon f2.8 60mm .

[Jay Lowery]

sigma 105mm and its a great lens. very sharp .

[Mundo Poco]

Sigma 105mm and a Canon MP-E 65mm- both very sharp lenses. I've used a set of Kenko extensions on the 105mm a lot and have tried them on the MP-E as well.

[racketman]

we need to add the Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro, TIPA 2007 best lens in Europe, sounds good.

[john-stocker]

I use the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro. Superb!

[roger the photographer]

I just added the Canon 180mm f/3.5 to my arsenal. I have not tested it thoroughly yet except to say this:

• It is a reasonably heavy lens, but I expected that. Nothing worse than many Canon pro lenses. A lot of glass equals a lot of weight. I always bring along a very heavy backpack anyway, so it's only a bit more weight.

• First class, professional build. Nothing loose in there!

• This is tripod business. Macro generally should be anyway, all the more so with a longer focal length.

• Very precise handling and focusing, even using the Canon 1.4 extender. Snaps into focus. Seems to work very well with Kenko extension tubes too, but I will know more about that in a month or two. :)

[Lester Wareham]

I just added the Canon 180mm f/3.5 to my arsenal. I have not tested it thoroughly yet except to say this:

• It is a reasonably heavy lens, but I expected that. Nothing worse than many Canon pro lenses. A lot of glass equals a lot of weight. I always bring along a very heavy backpack anyway, so it's only a bit more weight.

• First class, professional build. Nothing loose in there!

• This is tripod business. Macro generally should be anyway, all the more so with a longer focal length.

• Very precise handling and focusing, even using the Canon 1.4 extender. Snaps into focus. Seems to work very well with Kenko extension tubes too, but I will know more about that in a month or two. :)


Great Roger, all you need is the MP-E 65mm to have the macro holy trinity :).

The 180mm is on my wish list too.

Would love to some comparative crops at life size between the 100mm and 180mm and 180mm + 1.4X and 2X.

[178]

I bought my friend the Canon 100 2.8 for his b-day. He later realized that you can use a reverse mount and add your nifty fifty to the front of the 100. Just for sh!ts and giggles, he also attached my kenko tubes...pretty interesting results.

[w7psk]

I have the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro/zoom. Wasnt in the list.

[macro junkie]

The mpe-65 rules the world:D:p

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/1969138382_a59394d880.jpg

[SezzySue]

I like to borrow the canon 100mm 2.8 from school whenever I can.

[rang]

I'm not surprised,
but I am surprised only 1 person (at this point) uses the Tamron 90mm

This poll is helping me make my macro choice

I chose the Tammy 90 over the Canon for the following reasons

- A bit cheaper

- The objective lens is set back so I don't have to use a hood (the Canon's is right up at the very end so I would'nt use it without the hood for some sort of protection for any use other than Macro work (works nicely for even landscape shots) . And the Canon hood is expensive for what it is.

- It is light and after I put together my macro rig combos...they get heavy.

- I thought the IQ etc is right up there with the Canon.

:D

[Madweasel]

Since voting the Tamron 90mm as the nearest to the manual focus 90mm f/2.5 version I had kept from my film days, I've replaced it with the Canon 100mm, but I don't think there's a way of changing my vote, so it's yet one more for the Canon 100mm, and I'm very pleased with it. Sorry for a very long sentence!

[AccidentalArt]

does anypone have a link to the chart soemone did showing the working distances of each lens? I've been searching a bit and can't find it.


Thanks.

[Lester Wareham]

does anypone have a link to the chart soemone did showing the working distances of each lens? I've been searching a bit and can't find it.


Thanks.

There is this one http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm

and this one http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=779256#post779256

[Ferco]

I actually use my canon 300mm f/4 IS L now a lot of macro; especially if I put some tubes on- it really is awesome!

[Jamie Holladay]

I got a 100mm f/2.8 for Christmas and I like. Still learning the curve.

[pj60]

Just got the Canon 100mm. I have a lot to learn. I am a newbie to the world of photography and this is a whole different way of shooting.

http://katzzmeow.blogspot.com


Canon Rebel XT
18-55 kit lens
50mm (Nifty 50)
Canon 100mm macro

[shadowkipper]

Is that Canpn f.2.8 100mm good for really sharp bug and flower close ups?

Thanks

[JohnnyG]

Is that Canpn f.2.8 100mm good for really sharp bug and flower close ups?

Thanks
Incredibly sharp for sure!

[Lester Wareham]

Is that Canpn f.2.8 100mm good for really sharp bug and flower close ups?

Thanks

Ideal.

[shadowkipper]

Thanks. Would you say that its better than the Sigma 105mm Macro? Its cheaper so i just wanted to know which one you thought was better.

w00t. I should be getting My Canon EOS 400d (Im new to SLR photography) Next Friday. I cant wait.

[Lester Wareham]

Thanks. Would you say that its better than the Sigma 105mm Macro? Its cheaper so i just wanted to know which one you thought was better.

w00t. I should be getting My Canon EOS 400d (Im new to SLR photography) Next Friday. I cant wait.

I don't think there is anything wrong with any of the available macro lenses as such, but I can't see the point of getting an independent make unless it does something really special or you are strapped for cash.

Take a look at this review http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nnplus.de%2Fmacro%2FM acro100.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

The big difference between the Canon 100mm and the Sigma 105 is the focus method, the Canon is internal focus so it does not extend as you increase magnification, the Sigma is OLE meaning it extends (very significantly). The Canon has a fast silent USM AF motor with FTMF and a focus range limiter switch meaning it can double as a very sharp telephoto more effectively (IMHO).

The Canon did come out quite a bit sharper, specially at wider apertures in this review.

[rang]

Tamron 90 up to three, suprised there are not more though given its good reviews. Brand loyalty fairly strong with Canon taking 45% of the total.

Count me in for the Tammy 90. Great glass.

[shadowkipper]

Yay. Ive managed to reserve th following to mbuy next week:
Canon EOS (Ex-Display however mint condition) 400Dwith the (18-55mm Kit Lens). with 3 Year Damage Warranty
UV Filter
Camera Bag that should hold i think. The camera (equipped with a lens) and 2-3 others.
1 GB CF Card. I plan to buy a 4GB over the weekend though.

After that im gonna save up and buy the Canon 100mm f-2.8 Macro lens when i can find it cheap. Eaby perhaps, kerso is selling them at mad prices.

If ive got enoguh money i'll buy a cheapy flashgun and a flash diffuser next week to.

Thanks for all the help with the Macro lens. When i get it, i'll make sure i post some pics.

[AccidentalArt]

those of you that shoot the Canon 100mm, do you use a tripod ring on the lens or the camera to mount on tripod?

$143 for the ring mount seems extreme.

just wondered if it was necessary on a lens that only 1.6lbs.

thanks